Politics is the art of compromise. War is not.
—SENATOR ROBERT BYRD
September 29, 1983
The deaths of Losey and Ortega sparked protests from members of Congress. Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, the lone lawmaker who spoke out after the embassy bombing in April, reiterated his earlier view that the Marines should come home. “The United States,” he argued, “has no business playing policeman with a handful of Marines.” Democratic senator John Glenn of Ohio echoed him. “Our troops are clearly in a combat situation,” he said. “We can no longer have the president denying that there is imminent danger in Lebanon.”
Many lawmakers raised the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law passed during the Vietnam War as a means to check a president’s ability to wage war without congressional approval. The federal law mandates that a president notify Congress within forty-eight hours of troops entering combat and sets a sixty-day time limit for their withdrawal.
In his first report to Congress in September 1982, Reagan assured lawmakers that Marines would not be in harm’s way. “I want to emphasize,” he wrote, “there is no intention or expectation that U.S. Armed Forces will become involved in hostilities.”
Much had since changed.
The president, who was loath to cede his constitutional authority over foreign policy to Congress, attempted to dance around that new reality in an August 30, 1983, update to lawmakers. Reagan acknowledged the recent fighting in Lebanon, including the tragic deaths of Losey and Ortega. But those deaths occurred, the president wrote, because of sporadic fighting between Lebanese Armed Forces and various militias, which spilled over into positions around the airport. In short, the Marines were not the targets, only innocent bystanders. “I believe that the continued presence of these U.S. forces in Lebanon is essential to the objective of helping to restore the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon,” the president added. “It is still not possible to predict the duration of the presence of these forces in Lebanon; we will continue to assess this question in light of progress toward this objective.” Administration officials parroted that point in the press. “I believe,” Shultz said, “there is no concerted effort to single out the Marines and target them.”
Newspaper headlines trumpeted the administration’s view, even as stories and photos about the deaths of Losey and Ortega at times appeared on the same page. “Reagan Insists,” declared the Miami Herald, “Marines Not Involved in ‘Combat.’ ”
“Marines Aren’t Facing Imminent Hostilities in Beirut,” added the Ventura County Star.
In private, however, some senior State and Defense Department officials raised fears over the administration’s position, noting that attacks by the Druze and Shiite militias appeared aimed at both the Lebanese military and international forces. In addition, the violence only seemed to escalate—and no one had a road map of where it might lead. “This is a difficult situation, to say the least,” one State Department official told the New York Times.
Members of Congress likewise challenged the White House’s narrative. Refusing to label Marine engagements as “combat” or “hostilities” was a game of semantics. “We have people up in helicopters. We’re shooting rockets and artillery,” argued Illinois Republican senator Charles Percy. “If that isn’t imminent hostilities, I don’t know what it is.”
“American forces are clearly involved in hostilities,” added Senator Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, who feared a resumption of that nation’s civil war.
Other leaders raised questions about America’s continued role in Lebanon. Representative Henry Gonzalez wrote to the president that the Marines had been in Beirut for almost a year, during which time the situation had deteriorated. Neither Syria nor Israel showed any sign of real withdrawal. American mediation efforts had failed, while well-armed Lebanese factions demonstrated a renewed interest in slaughtering one another. “In these conditions, it is not only prudent, but absolutely necessary, to ask what the further risk of our young men can accomplish, what our interests are, and whether or not changes in policy are warranted,” wrote the Texas Democrat. “It may well be that there is a case for continuing the mission of our forces in Lebanon; but that case has yet to be made, and the need for review is urgent.”
Unlike when the troops first deployed, the deaths of the two Marines jump-started a far more robust public debate, sharpening the views of many on America’s role in the region. A Gallup poll commissioned by Newsweek showed six out of ten Americans wanted the Marines home. The same poll revealed that Reagan’s approval had dropped eight points since July, down to 44 percent. “It should be obvious by now,” argued the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey, “if it wasn’t earlier, that the Marines have been placed in a no-win situation in Beirut.”
“Is America caught in a trap?” asked U.S. News & World Report.
“In bewilderment and desperation, the United States keeps trying to apply Band-aids to cancer,” wrote New York Times columnist Flora Lewis.
Not all lawmakers and editorial pages advocated for a withdrawal. Some argued that while the Marine deaths were tragic, to pull out now would trigger the departure of other multinational forces. That power vacuum would doom Gemayel and launch Lebanon back into civil war. “Keeping the peace in Beirut is difficult,” wrote the Durham Sun in North Carolina. “Perhaps it is futile. It certainly involves risks to American lives. But the attempt must be made.”
A few reminded readers that the United States had landed in this mess because of Israel’s disastrous war against Lebanon and the massacre of Palestinian refugees. Now, as Thomas Friedman noted, Israel had grown tired of the bloodshed and prepared to vacate the Chouf Mountains, “leaving the Marines to pick up the pieces in Beirut.”
The questions and concerns raised by members of Congress and the press dovetailed with those of many Marines, who had spent recent days hunkered down in foxholes. “The only thing we do for fun here,” Henry Linkkila wrote in a letter to his mother, “is count bullet holes in sandbags.” The Marines, of course, followed the debate at home via the news. “No one wants to say we’re in a hostile situation,” said Corporal Richard McClain, “though it’s pretty obvious to me that we are.” Others challenged the administration’s claims that the Marines were not the intended targets. “When the shelling starts, you figure that one, maybe two, rounds hitting us here is accidental,” added a Marine. “More than that, it’s just good aim.”
Troops who months earlier had run a marathon waving the Lebanese flag now realized the depth of the country’s sectarian hatred. America had little hope, many felt, of piecing the war-torn nation back together. “I don’t think this country has a chance,” Major George Converse wrote to his wife. “They just can’t seem to stop fighting long enough to talk.” Others agreed. “Lebanon is lost,” a master sergeant confided to the Chicago Tribune’s Anne Keegan. “Everyone seems to think that now. We’re seeing it every day as they fire on each other.” This unfortunate realization dispirited many of the Marines, who had arrived in Lebanon hoping to make a difference. “Our troops,” Grant McIntosh wrote his family, “feel so useless.” Sergeant Robert Conley captured that sentiment in a letter to his dad. “I don’t like the situation here. I don’t respect the Lebanese Army or Government enough to risk my life for them. As far as I can see, no one can control the situation here,” Conley wrote. “So that just leaves us sitting here, taking more chances each day of someone getting hit and accomplishing nothing.”